﻿<html>
<head>

<title>ATAG2.0 Tester (Author) Template (Form) 24-3 - for Success Criterion 2.4</title>

<style type="text/css">


h2 {font-size: 150%;}
h1 {font-size: 200%;}


</style>
</head>

<body>

<h1>
ATAG 2.0 Tester (Author) Template (Form) 24-3 - for Success Criterion 2.4
</h1>
<p>
This form is divided into four parts: Part 1 - General Information, Part 2 - General Questions,
Part 3 - Specific Questions, and Part 4 - Supplemental Questions.  NOTE: The (link to) ATAG2.0
techniques may be included in Part 3 questions, but there may be other questions to answer in Part 3.
Therefore, the questions may need to be reorganized, so that for some questions, every question
may need to be answered, but for others, only one out of a set of questions (related to ATAG2.0
techniques) may need to be answered.  If you need any additional help (for example, steps to take
or resources to access) in order to answer any of the questions following, please email:
(mailto) public-atag-tests@w3.org.  It is desired that this form be easy and quick to fill out.
<hr>
<h2>Part 1 - General Information</h2>
<p>
DISCLAIMER: Data entered on this form is informative only.  The submitter bears all responsibility for the
accuracy of the data.  The data entered on this form 
may be reviewed by the W3C AUWG?
<p>
 Answers to all questions are
required (except for those questions marked OPTIONAL)(however, you may refer to answers on other templates if you wish); if you feel a question is not applicable, just write "not applicable" and
specify why.  If you need additional ATAG information (including access to the ATAG2.0 spec and techniques) to complete this form, you may go
to the ATAG site.  If you need additional WAI testing resources, go to ?  Please submit this form to "testreport site".  This information
will be made public.  This information will be made accessible.  After submitting this form, you may proceed directly to
the <a href="atag-tester-form31-3.htm">Tester Form for Success Criterion 3.1-3</a>, or back to the <a href="ATAG20testsuite.htm">
main ATAG test page</a>.  It is possible that some results may be machine-reportable, in
which case the developer should have noted this information on the developer's form (link?), and you
could attach the machine-reportable results to this form.  There are no dependencies on other tester forms
 for filling out this form.  Thank you.

<h3>TEST PURPOSE:</h3> To evaluate an authoring tool's formats according to SC2.4

<h3>TEST AGAINST:</h3> Success Criterion 2.4 - 

Any Web content (e.g., templates, clip art, example pages, etc.) that is bundled with the authoring tool
or preferentially licensed to the users of the authoring tool (i.e., provided for free or sold at a discount), must
conform to WCAG Level AAA when inserted. 
<hr>
<h2>Part 2 - General Questions (ref: Conformance Profile)</h2> 
<h3>
Name of Tester (Author):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Date and Version of Specifications Tested Against (include ATAG, ISO16071, and WCAG
as appropriate):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Contact Info of Tester/Author(s):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Address of Tester/Author(s):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Email of Tester/Author(s):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Phone Number(s) of Tester/Author(s):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Fax# of Tester/Author(s):
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Authoring Tool Tested (please be specific) - category of authoring tool,
format(s) output from authoring tool, and platform that authoring tool uses)
(indicate if tool is bundled tool):
</h3>
<p> 
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Have you accessed the developers form (if available) (link?) for this particular authoring tool and success criterion?  If so, do you have any questions on
any of that information?  It is not necessary (but desirable) for the developer to have submitted a form for the tool you
are testing.  
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr>





<h2>Part 3 - Specific Test Questions for Success Criterion 2.4</h2>
Note: These questions may in the future refer back in a one-to-one relationship with information on each question
provided by the tool developer on a separate template?  You have access to the developer's information
for each question.   For more information on ATAG2.0 spec go to ?.
<p>
INVESTIGATION:
<p>
<ul>
<li>What examples of Web content did you find that were bundled with this particular
authoring tool?  (may require authoring actions) (NOTE: MAY WANT TO STOP AT THIS POINT TO GET INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS,
AND RETURN TO FORM AT THIS POINT!) 
 
<br>
<br>
<br>


<li> What examples of Web content did you find that were preferentially licensed to users of this particular
authoring tool? (may require authoring actions)(NOTE: MAY WANT TO STOP AT THIS POINT TO GET INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS,
AND RETURN TO FORM AT THIS POINT!) 
<br>
<br>
<br>
  
<li>What methods of insertion did you find for this particular authoring tool?
(may require authoring actions)(NOTE: MAY WANT TO STOP AT THIS POINT TO GET INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS,
AND RETURN TO FORM AT THIS POINT!) 
<br>
<br>
<br>

</ul>
<p>
<!--
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.2.1.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the enabling of user
 input/output choice according to Part 7.2.1.1 of ISO16071:2002(E) (please be specific-if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated?)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.2.2 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate enabling the user to
 perform task effectively with any single input device according to Part 7.2.2 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific
-if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.2.4 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate enabling user setting
 of timed responses according to Part 7.2.4 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.2.10 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate an avoidance of
 seizure-inducing blink rates according to Part 7.2.10 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.2.12 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate enabling user control
 of time-sensitive presentation of information according to Part 7.2.12 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>

<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.3.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the use of system-standard input/output
 according to Part 7.3.1 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.3.2 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the provision of object labels
 according to Part 7.3.2 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.3.3 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate how to make event notification
available to assistive technologies
 according to Part 7.3.3 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.3.4 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate how to make object attributes available to
assistive technologies according to Part 7.3.4 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.3.5 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the use of system-standard input/output
 according to Part 7.3.5 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.4.11 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the reserving of accessibility key mappings
 according to Part 7.4.11 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.4.13 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the separation of keyboard navigation and activation
 according to Part 7.4.13 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.5.2 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the enabling of location of button functions
 according to Part 7.5.2 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.5.9 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate the provision of alternatives to chorded key presses
 according to Part 7.5.9 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific-if (so/not), how
 was it (so/not) demonstrated)?  What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.6.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate font customization and legibility according to Part 7.6.1 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific
if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.8.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate alternatives to the use of color as the sole source of information according to Part 7.8.1 of 
ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.8.6 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate provision of alternatives to coding by hue according to Part 7.8.6 of ISO16071:2002(E)(please be specific
if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.9.5 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate allowing users to choose visual indication of audio output according to Part 7.9.5 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.10.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate allowing task-relevant warning or error information to persist according to Part 7.10.1 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.12.3 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate enabling cursor and pointer customization according to Part 7.12.3 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.13.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate enabling non-pointer navigation directly to windwows according to Part 7.13.1 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.14.1 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate provision of focus cursor according to Part 7.14.1 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.14.2 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate provision of keyboard navigation according to Part 7.14.2 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>
<h2> [(link to developer's) 7.14.3 entry?] For each specific authoring action mentioned previously, did the authoring tool interface demonstrate provision of navigation to task-appropriate groups of controls according to Part 7.14.3 of ISO16071:2002(E)
(please be specific - if (so/not), how was it (so/not) demonstrated)?
What test procedure did you use?  What test environment did you use?</h2>  
<p>

-->
<hr>
<p>
AFTER THE INVESTIGATION:
<p>
Please answer the following questions:
 
<ul>
<li>(OPTIONAL) For authoring tools that allowed you to create your own templates, were you advised that
templates should be held to a high accessibility standard, since they will be repeatedly reused?
  If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>(OPTIONAL) Did the authoring tool help you to reach the previous goal by making an accessibility
 check mandatory before saving as a template?  If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>(OPTIONAL) Did the authoring tool provide pre-authored content in formats that allowed for
accessible annotation to be included in the files, such as SMIL, PNG, and SVG?  If yes, why?
If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>(OPTIONAL) Did the authoring tool make use of accessible templates?  If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>(OPTIONAL) Did the authoring tool ensure that equivalent alternatives provided
 for pre-authored content were interoperable with functionaltiy for managing, editing, and reusing equivalent alternatives?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
Please answer the following questions for TIME 1 (Please enter at this point:____),
 for every example of web content and method of insertion, that
you found in answers to previous questions:
(NOTE: x goes from 1 to n, where n is greater than or equal to 1)
(NOTE: y goes from 1 to m, where m is greater than or equal to 1)

<ul>

  

<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.3 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.4 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.3 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.4 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.5 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC3.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC3.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>   
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC4.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC4.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>




</ul>
<hr>
<p>

<p>
Please answer the following questions for TIME 2 (different from TIME 1) (Please enter at this point:____),
 for every type of markup and example of content that had acceptable formats, that
you found in answers to previous questions:
<ul>

<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.3 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC1.4 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.3 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.4 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC2.5 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC3.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC3.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>   
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC4.1 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>Was web content x for method of insertion y necessary 
and sufficient to make sure
that all of the (specific version of) WCAG20 Level 1, 2 and 3 Tests in the WCAG2.0 Test Suite for WCAG2.0 SC4.2 were passed?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?   
<br>
<br>
<br>

<li>In sum, did the authoring tool ensure that all pre-authored content provided by the authoring tool conform to the
relevant WCAG Level AAA checkpoints as described previously?
If yes, why?  If no, why not?
<br>
<br>
<br> 


</ul>



<!--

<ul>
<li>For tools that allow authors to create their own templates, advise the author that templates should be held to a high accessibility standard, since they will be repeatedly reused. Help the author reach this goal by making an accessibility check mandatory before saving as a template.@@KM perhaps make cross-ref to appropriate checkpoint in guideline 3, maybe 4 (about checking, etc.)? @@

<li>Provide pre-authored content in formats that allow for accessible annotation to be included in the files, such as SMIL [SMIL], PNG [PNG], and SVG [SVG].

<li>Ensure that all pre-authored content provided by the tool conforms to the relevant WCAG checkpoints.

<li> Make use of accessible templates. Examples: Template 1: Home page, Template 2: News and events page, Template 3: About page, Stylesheet: Used by sample templates. @@KM I understand the first sentence, but not the examples.@@

<li>Ensure equivalent alternatives provided for pre-authored content are inter-operable with functionality for managing, editing, and reusing equivalent alternatives (see checkpoint 3.5). @@NEW@@

<li>Tool designer lists on form all web content types produced by the tool
<li>Tool designer lists on form all WCAG-capable formats supported for each content type mentioned previously
<li>Tool designer specifies on form whether any format selections of the tool are automatic 
<li>Author verifies on form that all of the following are true for each supported/selected format mentioned before (or N/A if not applicable?):  

<li>For every referenced format, all the WCAG tests are satisfied


</ul>
--><p>
<hr>
<ul>
<li>What test procedure did you use for SC2.4?  What test environment did you use for SC2.4?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<li>
SUMMARY QUESTION:Objectively, from your perspective, did this authoring tool "pass" 
("yes" answers to all non-OPTIONAL Part 3 questions AFTER THE INVESTIGATION)  ATAG2.0 Success Criterion 2.4?
If yes, why?  If not, why not? (please be specific)
<br>
<br>
<br>
</ul> 
<p>

<hr>
<h2>Part 4 - Supplemental Questions</h2>

 
<h3>
Please give any other information you feel may be helpful (please be specific): 
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
Please comment on the quality of the questions asked and/or the specification/techniques (please be specific): 
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>
What other questions do you feel might be helpful?  Do you have any bugs/issues with this form? (please be specific)  
</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>Date of completion of this form (template):</h3>
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br> 
<p>
Thank you very much!  Your evaluation will be logged and made publicly available.
</p>



   


</body>
</html>